Talk:Josephus on Jesus

Shlomo Pines
Someone to add the findings and biblography of Shlomo Pines along with his translations of Josephus' testimony. Tuxzos22 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Please. Tuxzos22 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Two suggestions
-sche (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dunn's reconstruction of the Testimonium is quoted via quote box (fullwidth, in contrast to the quote-boxes that are right-aligned like pictures), Vermes's version is quoted via &lt;blockquote&gt;. It's odd to have such different formatting only a few paragraphs apart, on the same screen; can we pick a consistent format?
 * That most modern scholars accept that the Testimonium is partially authentic and had an authntic kernel is repeated 6+ times, sometimes in adjacent paragraphs: It is broadly agreed that while the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, followed in the next section by most modern scholars accept the position that the Testimonium is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.[51][9] While before the advent of literary criticism most scholars considered the Testimonium entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.[52] However, most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel, and shortly thereafter While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text and a few sections further down Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the Testimonium, while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel and a few sections after that most modern scholars believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, and has a reference to Jesus. Can (should?) this be made any less repetitive?


 * If it can be improved then it should be. Perhaps your real question is whether these thin opinions belong here at all. Since "Some people say" is the most common example of weasel words, I support removing them or at least adding citation-needed to each instance. Cutelyaware (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

ISBN error
The Google search for the ISBN 0-8146-5152-6 leads to a different book (James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus of Nazareth) not The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission.-- İskender  Balas 💬 20:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Academic consensus
Please obey WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I was manually reverting an edit (i.e. from "Almost all" BACK to "some" as I interpreted that as itself a violation of WP:RS/AC. I was patrolling new edits on WikiLoop Doublecheck and closed the page by accident so went back to do it manually. Shouldn't it be reverted (again!) back to "some"? Eggventura (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Every scholar worth his salt will say that it is impossible that Josephus wrote that piece of Christian propaganda, simply because he wasn't a Christian. Only a Christian would write that Jesus is the Messiah, or that Jesus was resurrected the third day. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I doubt that Josephus wrote anything of the sort about Jesus, it is possible that the apocryphal text replaced or embellished one of Josephus' original texts. Some copyist simply altered the text to fit his/her pious bias. Dimadick (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Point taken, you're right and we should leave it as "some"-- I'm just hardwired to be put off by hard-and-fast near definitive wording like "almost all" and saw it as a necessary reversion; will be more cautious in the future Eggventura (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Arabic Testimonium
It would be beneficial, I think, to include the translation made by Shlomo Pines of the Arabic version of the Testimonium:
 * "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

 Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  20:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Bogus
is just bogus. First, Josephus did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, we know full well that Josephus wasn't Christian. Second, even if he did, that nucleus could never pass for authentic historical fact among modern historians. Third, the edit by the IP distorted the majority view of mainstream Bible scholars, who do consider that the passage was altered/interpolated by Christians. Perhaps it does not distort it in a blatant way, but it distorts it by implication (suggestion). Fourth, it leaves the words utterly unexplained. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)